Steve Isley


Yes it looks appealing if you work in LCA and carbon footprint (putting the results out to the public and end consumer), but seems also naive. Almost as if saying: if you smoke one cigarette, you will live 12 minutes and 34 seconds less (without referring a specific study, assessment methodology, etc.). And in LCA and CF, you have the specific issue of different background databases with entirely different results for similar supply chains, maybe more than in cigerette-health investigations (but I am not an expert there). So Lubomila Jordanova "This is what every product should have on its product's label" - I do not think so. Not like this, not for now.
I wonder if everyday consumers understand what these numbers mean.
As someone working with LCA and knowing about the many assumptions involved in numbers like these I'm not convinced that labels like this one gives any meaningful information to consumers on their own.. Are those numbers high or low? Are assumptions reasonable? Do they apply to me and my country? How could I impact them? What happens to the use (0.0) if I wash them regularly in my washing machine? Would that make them last longer to an extent that would be worth the extra emissions for doing so? Are the total numbers comparable to total numbers for similar or entirely different products?
I'd be the first to welcome more LCA studies but there is a great risk that we get too focused on the existence of such numbers and less what they mean. In this case the key message to consumers would be: This product comes with an amount of embedded carbon emissions. Don't waste it. Make sure to use these shoes for long and treat them well.
Would be better to have a global Carbon price on all fossil fuels (and possibly other Carbon emissions such as natural methane). Everyone understands and makes decisions from the sticker price..
Great product label indeed!
I share a simple calculation on CO2-emissions for owning and walking these shoes compared to driving a fossil fuelled car.

Imperial units:
The average passenger vehicle emits about 404 grams of CO2 per mile(1).
This makes an environmental return of invest after walking 7,3 miles!
(2940 grams/404 grams per mile)

Metric units:
EU fleet-wide CO2 emission targets for the period 2020-2024 for cars: 95 g CO2/km(2).
This makes an environmental return of invest after walking 31 km!
(2940 grams/95 grams per kilometer)

Without taking into account the air pollution (particles & other gases) and how great you will feel walking!

Sources:
(1) https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle
(2) https://ec.europa.eu/clima/eu-action/transport-emissions/road-transport-reducing-co2-emissions-vehicles/co2-emission-performance-standards-cars-and-vans_en

Ps. Surprising that the packaging stands for 11% of the total CO2-footprint. Any improvements possible here?
I bought this shoe. It’s beautiful, and this method of manufacturing is undoubtedly the future. And I’m here for it.

But I will say, the shoes were relatively poor quality. The mesh was dirty within days, and just from crossing paths your average sidewalk scuff, the fabric was uncleanable. Within a fortnight the shoes - black and filthy - ended up in a waste paper bin during my travels in Bangkok.

So yes, let’s make fashion with a lower carbon footprint. But let’s also make it to last. Because if I had to buy six of them a year, I might have just bought a single good pair of shoes instead.
This is super interesting. I've been thinking about this a lot lately and how if we are to tackle this then could we apply a carbon limit to peoples lives? So those who travel extensively by Air would have to consider if their travel was utterly necessary. Could the rearrnage their lives to use less intensive travel and stay with in their budget? Or how about the food that you eat. When I see sushi trays which are expensive and the distance that the food has travelled - there should be carbon detailing on the food like this also. Its a little like we have in the UK with the HMRC and how much we can earn before being taxed - and then taxed at even higher amounts.

Something similar could happen with your carbon absorption through living your life.
Needs a QR code linking to the tracking of that specific pair, both for its carbon footprint but also it's manufacturing provenance.

This would enable the customer to ensure their trainers were made in a registered factory not using child labour, paying a fair wage, using materials that conform to the same standards. Then how it was packed and shipped, third party seller verification etc.

Overall giving a holistic view of this specific items social and environmental impact. All the information should already exist it just needs logging, verification and making available to a consumer (and/or regulators, customs etc).
With all due respect: this is not what the fashion industry should be focusing on. Rather, they must take responsibility for the final destination of their products. GHG emissions from landfills are significantly increasing global warming. Of course it’s important to measure a product’s carbon footprint. It just is not the disruption that is needed but rather it’s an incremental change that just won’t cut it (see my previous newsletter edition for example where I back up this statement).
What is a value added to the consumer? What action is expected as a consequence? Are these numbers verifiable? Do you realize it is a waste! Every food product has on its packaging info about energy. Does somebody read it? Does somebody care? Rarely if ever. What is the point of this "green" obsession, which is not green at all and only creates unproductive work for resource-burning NGOs? These and many similar put the economy into a downward spiral.
Is it? And what for? Can anyone say if it is a lot or not? This is nonsense the market is not able to deal with climate by just giving information to customers. Look at the automotive ...everyone knows that SUVs are emitting more than city cars...nonetheless SUVs are selling more than city cars. Even sport brands are building SUVs version...we need LEGISTATION on limiting consumption not nice labels...
(edited)
I'm pro consciousness and support these initiatives but this label doesn't help me. Is this al lot co2? What's the shoe benchmark? Consumers are mostly not involved and expect the industry to make te right choices for them if it comes to the environment. If you want to make them aware when choosing, then an energy-a-like label (A: low impact in the shoe cat. - E: high impact in the shoe cat.) makes it much better to understand. And print it inside the shoe or add a (digital) label to the shelf it's presented upon. This is a tear off label which adds to waste.
(edited)
It is utterly misleading and meaningless.

Focusing on only #carbonfootprint is not a good idea. This is a very much of a tunnel vision towards #sustainability.

To address the aspects of true #sustainability it is more than #carbon. Projecting such numbers is nothing but #greenwashing and #manipulation.
"Facts" hide more than they show - Allbirds should add a line about how many times you need to buy new shoes since they tear and break all the time due to bizarre materials and a business model that works by making the buyer re-up more frequently - so multiply these numbers and their impact by the time factor. This is pure greenwashing. This is a lot like food labelling - it took years to get nutritional labels right
Makes sense that one of the first to do a carbon footprint is a shoe. On a more serious note, I hope that all who do this have the methodology and input assumptions on a website somewhere.
I like that but doubt the numbers which is because I know that the supply chain CO2 is definitely an assumption and guessing the materials used, to low. Same for the pure production, this number definitely does not include the commute and further costs - and if so, other ESG criteria, here not part of the calculation, are bad again (salary, etc.).

Hence Shoe-Making, even though it is correctly the highest number, is at least to low, if not way to low.

And that's why no one even starts like this from my opinion. As fashion makers, we did publish the CO2 and further costs / item more than a decade ago and gave up when we realized that the costs of explanation where higher than the questions we wanted to raise in terms of environmental use.

I like this new beginning anyways and as soon as our new products come out, we'll start again with data incl. ESG criteria and Co.

Long story short, and as I saw it mentioned in the comments already: This is a beginning. I suggest a QR code with a website explaining the numbers etc. in addition would be great.

Let's launch one website to publish those numbers together. Why one? We save tons of CO2, probably.
How about posting the per unit cost paid to the persons assembling the shoe? Then we would see the profit those manufacturers make per unit CO2. Then tax them with a multiplier scaler based on their profit margin base to normalize the lower wages they pay. They can then chose to pay better to lower there tax burden, or be taxed on their carbon footprint derived profits tax.
There’s no way of squirming out of becoming a CO2 generator at that rate.
not really? the hyperfocus on carbon is wrong at its core. Complete economies and societies are now steered towards a 'thing' that is not even a 'thing', only to alarmists.
A lot of us will like this but how can I trust these numbers?
Exactly! 👏🏽 This is exactly what Planet FWD empowers brands to do with our software - across food, beauty and fashion. Would love to talk to you about how we could team up with Plan A for any of your customers that might want to continue to expand their impact in these ways. Getting consumers to a place where they understand these numbers (or other representations) is the goal - and it will take a few first movers, like Allbirds, Numi Tea, Just Salad, etc. to get us there!
I personally think it’s a decent idea but does it not put too much pressure on the people buying the clothes rather than the businesses

Disadvantaged families have less options and fast fashion becomes their only option a lot of the time.

We’re then making these families feel guilty about harming the planet when it has less to do with their personal choices and more do with the corporations themselves 🤷‍♂️
Love this concept but it might need some refining for shoppers - I.e. what does the 2.94 actually mean? I’ve seen a nice variation on this as ‘number of wears required to justify the purchase/expected from the purchase’… hard to calculate but maybe more meaningful
(edited)
Since this is a shoe.
Wouldn’t a shoe have a negative carbon footprint?

Because if I can protect me feet I walk longer distances. So that means I could skip driving my car, hence I would save carbon emissions.

Just food for thought. 😁
I’m curious to know if people actually understand those numbers and what it means.

Plus it would be great to also see offsetting suggestions, like tree planting 🌳
I'd suggest they add a short link to read the methodology and the scope of the evaluations. And ideally the details of what went into this specific product's numbers.
And I really hope the apparel & footwear industries (and others) will converge toward 1 methodology, including the way to set the scope. Otherwise, those numbers won't be comparable from one brand to another.
It´s not about labelling every product - that only opens up a market for greenwashing consulting industries - but about shifting our energy supply to 100% renewable energy. But why should we keep it simple if we can create a lot of complicate mechanisms. 😉
What a load of crap!!! A system invented by the same idiots that believe cows are killing the planet! Too many people spending too long in universities studying box ticking systems instead of actually knowing what’s going wrong with the world. They probably all cheared in their air conditioned office when they came up with this little sticker. People who believe this is good are the problem.
(edited)
It's a fantastic start but ... water Footprint? Land use? And in particolar in the fashion industry : Social impact? Child labour?
We can't analyze the sustainabilty only due to environmental impact and Carbon KPI.
It would be interesting to see this stuck on the side of all new, shiny EV’s…
The irony of equipping people with knowledge designed to empower ‘greener’ decision making is that it can often feel ambiguous. Without anything to refer to, I have no idea whether these are especially sustainable or not.
Its a good start, but seems like one total number would be enough, and I would like to see it color coded (green, yellow, red) with letters (A-F) comparing to other such products across the entire industry so we can immediately determine its relative position. And lets do the same for all 3 ESG letters as relevant to each product including its entire value/supply chain.
Carbon footprint stats on consumer goods is a topic I've been thinking a lot about recently! In BrewDog, Dublin (not sure about their other locations,) they are also putting the carbon footprint of each meal on the menu - so you can see how much better off you are, in a C02 emissions sense, by choosing one meal over another. It was interesting to see how much carbon output a burger/chicken wings have 😱. For example: a double beef burger has over 20kgs of C02 emissions, which is over 20 times more than some of its veggie burger counterparts ! 💡 I think what they are doing here is an amazing initiative.
And the good news is that we have both standards protocoles and SAP technologies to do it rigth now.
Vast majority of consumers would find this information useless. It’s not the only environmental problem we have to deal with.
Sorry, but in 99% of cases it is not true :)
(edited)
Where's the primary production (agriculture) carbon footprint in it? If you count the conventional cotton production emissions to it, it will certainly emit more than it sequesters. No doubt about it. Only the Nitrogen fertilizer would already make it negative. If the cotton or rubber isn't produced regeneratively, it will never be positive.
The customers need to understand what it means and if the company is doing something to reduce it! Declaring the carbon footprint is important business to business but to consumer they need a comparison reference to understand if it is a good performance or not. For doing that we need to align and using the same rules to calculate it. Another way could be that the company compared to their own performance and show how much reduction have been achieved for each product comparing with ten previous model. That it could be a relative performance but at least you can have the sense of the editors done
Couldn’t agree more Lubomila Jordanova. Unless we raise the bar what is going to change ??

Do you know who checks these figures .. is it on Adidas website?

We have provided this information on all our products for over a year now, we offer a Greenline range made from recycled materials .. fishing nets, post consumer plastics.. plastic bags etc …all certified by independent regulators! When customers are given the choice and information … they can make informed decisions!

You won’t believe how sustainable / reduced C02 footprint something can have if you try … what do you think of our approach ?? Links in the videos tell the whole story … from waste plastics to modern playgrounds!

https://www.kompan.co.uk/sustainability
Like with most products, also here the biggest impact is related to the materials that have been used. Responsible sourcing of upstream supplies must be based on accurate, primary and reliable information. Today, almost none of this data is known or missing in machine-readable formats. S1SEVEN | Material Identity provides software serves as a drop-in replacement for paper-based quality documents to trace quality and sustainability with computable material certificates across global supply chains. This is the foundation for verifiable calculation of Scope 3 emissions.
Agenda 2050 from NWO to rationing our economy to unseen levels. Change currency to this reference of CO2 is the desire of the 1% squad

This number are fine but then the product is shipped from Chine to let’s say New York in a vehicle that only 1 has the same CO2 emissions than 26M Passenger cars…
https://www.statista.com/statistics/216048/worldwide-co2-emissions-by-ship-type/

Then the CO2 KPIs are gone through the toilet but that seems not to be part of the equation and as well consumers do not care about the travel made by the thing they have in their hands (if they buy fisically but not online)
Interesting initiative, but it can be improved to make a bigger impact.
For example rolling up to the total and add a comparison with the data about the average market-wide emission for the product category can be a good marketing idea as well as driving real change in both customers and manufacturers:
- customers will have a reference and can more easily choose more sustainable products
- manufacturers will try to be under the average, bringing the average down over time, creating a very positive vicious circle.

Of course this is challenging as it requires the availability of market-wide data for the specific product catagory and possible some organization to guarantee that the CO2 values declared are true.
Unless this becomes industrial practice for all shoes manufacturers and brands, this won't make sense to any consumer.With what to compare? Is it less or is it more?
This is just one part of the story of sustainable products. What about microplastics footprint, sustainable process analysis, value chain impact assessments, etc... it is a beginning of a label process but not the end and not top of the mountain or rocket science. As most of the people might know, Higg Indexing is also just one part of the story. Without a full picture, we will never run into long-term sustainability including economic benefits. As long as economic benefits beat sustainability, most of our actions will not become changemakers. They will only be seen as an add-on or nice to have. Sad but truth, isn't it?
Yes definitely!!! Been thinking this for ages - it should be a standard like the nutrition break down on food!
Or, hear me out, we could stop pestering average consumers and start chasing the real trouble makers: China and India. But yes, it's easier to screw the normal folk and ask them to thank you for it.
Use can actually be negative if you're walking instead of driving...
Very good milestone to generate such an interesting conversation.
Numbers are numbers and are good if you can compare them with something else. The company seems to be a pioneer comunicating what is the footprint for one of the products which is good. Think about your companies and how many are communicating at least something connecting with sustainability like the shoes company + how good their are in production achieving sustainability goals.
Then we have the feeling point when we as a consumer decide about paper or plastic with our to consider many things as Carbo footpriint or the company in the back producing products and bringing garment from China to consume in America or Europe etc.
We all are responsible for pushing the companies to be betters in sustainability. I totally agreed with the shoes company showing showing the Carbo footprint of the products. We should all promote this practice.
The only made-up number that matters is money. Making up new numbers is pointless.

Want to make things more sustainable? Enact laws to charge companies a progressive climate tax based on total carbon footprint. Make it so that the tax always applies on the gross revenue with no scope for deductions. Legislate such that the tax applies even if offshoring work to other countries.

Cheap, unsustainable goods will die out. Consumers won't have to juggle a bunch of numbers while feeling guilty of buying stuff they want.
(edited)
I appreciate the effort of advocating the significance of carbon footprint but is it going to make a difference in consumer's mindset ?

And is it a big deal to advocate themselves of being carbon neutral ?

They have just calculated the GHG emissions from Cradle to Gate i.e the scope is confined just to a smaller portion of the whole Life cycle of the product. But the irony is in the whole Life Cycle of a Shoe the major carbon footprint contribution will be in its usage phase. So would they guarantee that these pair of shoes have lesser usage/ maintainance throughout its life
Materials, materials, materials, everyone looking at materials and the production of a product. And while it is indeed important, we have billions of waste no one seems to care about… Let’s focus on durability, where a garment can last 10 years. Let’s focus on education, when you don’t need to own 15 pairs of shoes… a year! Let’s focus on how to get all those wasted garments back processes and not the landfills. Let’s start by designing in a way that recyclability is practical. And then, we can focus on materials and improving those, with proper reliable data that assures it’s use. Not like with recycled polyester…
This is waaaay too system 2 for the average consumer. Tell me a story, like how far did the shoe travel in kms? How many showers worth of water did it take to grow the cotton? How many lightbulbs were on and for how long energy-wise? Concepts that we can all relate to and that we are already familiar with.

Expecting people to learn this standard is like expecting them to learn a new language. Yes, some might, but they need to be highly motivated to do it. They need time, energy, and practice to build the new concepts and create connections.

To make a real impact quickly we need to break this down for ordinary people who don't have the time, energy, or motivation to learn new conceptual models. Which let's face it, are the majority.
Although educating the masses is always a step in the right direction, putting the onus on the individual to solve climate change shifts the responsibility from government and corporations to address this crisis, thus reducing the likelihood our society will be able to develop a viable solution. Instead of telling us the carbon footprint of a shoe, why don't shoe companies actually take steps to minimize it?
I like the idea and it would work if everyone was conscious with their decision-making. However, the recent discussions regarding celebrities and rich individuals using private jets showcase that humanity is really far away from this level of consciousness. Us counting our carbon footprint does not change much if the rich ones keep doing whatever they want like taking a jet flight for 5 min so that they would “save” time on a 30 min drive. I am sure that if we digged around we could find many more examples of extremely poor environmental choices in the elite circles that are much more environmentally impactful than us counting how much our shoes cost in carbon emissions 🤷‍♀️
Interesting approach to help customers understand the impact of product lifecycles. I would be interested to see if customers understand the values and change their buying behavior accordingly. I think that the textile industry should not only focus on CO2 equivalents. The number of shoes produced, the working conditions in production, the percentage of sole abrasion... there are far more criteria that could be made transparent to have an influence in the buying behavior.
It would be nice if we got to the point where our products had a positive footprint. So having a positive impact on our environment. Producing less bad products in mass doesnt solve the problem we are facing.
Nevertheless, it is a step into the hopefully positive future.
(edited)
It is a good initiative but how can transportation figures everbe accurate? The buyer has no choice to accept this as correct but it can only ever be accurate to the factory gate.
Most consumers are blissfully unaware of the zig-zag style distribution of consumer products - a buyer in Los Angeles is unlikely to have any concept that a specific product they bought entered the USA via the Port of Los Angeles (passing their home), transported to a manufacturer warehouse in Chicago before moving to a retailer warehouse in Northern California then moving to a distribution hub and on to a store near their home.
Is "USE" really zero though??? Technically speaking, they likely have the data to determine 1) how long these shoes will last based on material degradation (person's weight, shoe exposure to UV, Laundry cycles), # of days used and 2) how many miles or kilometers a person will walk in these shoes. If anything, they should be listing a carbon credit there for "USE". That might also have an incentive nudge effect of encouraging other consumers to be these shoes and at least walk more often than drive.... #nudge #booth #data
Only Sustainable way for 0 or -ve carbon footprint is the mass annihilation of all human being on this planet.
Well lets start from you with assumption that you are living in developed country:-
1. you must be using some form of Air conditioning.
2. You must be driving some vehicle.
3. you must be wearing some clothes.
4. You must be straightening your hair(electrcity) and using some makeup(petroleum jelly).
5. You must be using a smart phone for creating this post.
6. This post you created getting stored somewhere in server for life burning energy to store your content.
7. You must be eating something that again reaches you from a long supply chain probably using a lot of diesel.
8. you must be using some kind of shampoo & soap when you bath.
9. Even when procreating must be using kind of lubrication & protection that again is a petroleum or rubber product.
10. When ill you must be using some pharma products packaged in plastic.
Well this list can go on and on. Human life cannot be carbon neutral. Rest is tactics of brand companies to earn more dollars from fools or rich.
Carbon neautrality can only come from human death and even then when you are burried deep without casket.So stop peddling hypocrisy.
Many companies are using carbon footprint statements for showing off how green they are. It has literally become a marketing item. I think it is good to make a statement and focus on this topic, but we as customers also need a way to verify it. Also the label does not cover the longevity and quality of a product. A product with better longevity but higher manufacturing footprint, might at the end be the one with the lower carbon footprint. 🤔 Just some thoughts.
I think it is a very good idea, as long as it will be used to make someone aware of the impact of the product.
But these numbers will be used in the long run for taxes.
There are people in Western countries, that have to make ends meet, and maybe the products they are using now, are in the class that will be taxated heavily.
Even if they switch to other products, the gross price will be larger (production of cleaner products + lower taxes versus production of polution heavy products + higher taxes taxes).
The goal of taxes is to correct our behaviour. But that is like taxes on everything, it is money you worked for, that isn't yours anymore.

So I agree on the awxareness part, but I am afraid for the political part.
this is a great start but there are easy ways to do this better. Think of a Digital Product Passport (DPP) enabled by QR and/or NFC. This allows for more and better sharing of information and reduces the need for such a big label (which is more sustainable and nicer to look at.) We Tappr would love to share how this can be done #Tappr #sustainability #digitalproducts #nfc #digitalfashion
Transparency is always a welcome step in the right direction. But it's important to remember that data can be misleading if it isn't contextualised as part of a 'bigger picture', and if people aren't given the tools and evidence to interpret and engage with this information.

Reading this, I have so many questions: What does X amount of KG of CO2 per pair actually mean? How does this compare to a regular pair of sneakers? What does the 'end of life' stage entail here - are we talking about fully recycling the pair?
It’s tough for all companies to do this. Footwear brands and clothing companies generally usually work with several factories, who in turn have dozens of different suppliers for different materials. If you want to get accurate data, it requires an immense level of accounting and requires all the suppliers (from glue manufacturers to those providing upper and midsole materials) to also account for their carbon footprint. We’re at the infancy stage of carbon accounting in the UK, but there’s a long way to go before we see accurate carbon accounting for all products made overseas.
Nice idea, but limited in many fronts.
For example:
- how about washing shoes at a certain temperature, or with cold water? How about using a class A washing machine, or a class D one? How is this included in the e2e life of the shoe? This has no 0.0 impact in use
- how about consumers actually trusting these numbers? There is no reliable way in which to achieve the necessary accuracy and credibility of the source and process of the numbers printed there. Especially, considering infrastructure in developing countries (where these shoes are produced), is not the best priority for big enterprises)
- how about consumers interpreting what is written there? There is little to no education on this front
- even more important: how about the social impact of producing goods in developing countries? I would include an ESG rating rather than a carbon footprint one. This would provide a broader perspective on what the company is actually doing

Honestly, I would think of a wider idea in which not only producers but also consumers and other participants of the of the value chain are accountable for what they buy, use, consume, or how they behave.
(edited)
Very good metrics, but I do not agree with the statement that use is 0!
Sure, the sneakers do not emit any carbon dioxide during usage, but the human using them does. This should also be noted on the label, same as the cars.
The data shows that the greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions associated with food intake required to fuel a kilometer of walking range between 0.05 kgCO2e/km in the least economically developed countries to 0.26 kgCO2e/km in the most economically developed countries. (Citation: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7280492/ )
So, if one uses these shoes for 100km, one will have carbon footprint between 5kg and 26kg.
Usually, I try to use my sneakers for more than 100 km. My target for using shoes is always 650km (as suggested by my Gamin watch 😁), so during the lifetime of any shoes that I use I emit between 32.5kg up to 169kg.
Hence depending on where the shoes are sold the number should be between +35 up to +169 😊
Environmental labeling is important, however most consumers do not work in sustainability nor do they have environmental science backgrounds.

Telling a lay person the carbon footprint of their shoes is 2.94 kg CO2 eq./ pair doesn't help them. Is that a lot? or a little? Was this a climate smart purchase? What about a more durable pair with a higher footprint that will last 2 years longer?

Labeling should be targeted to the lowest common denominator.
I think I care more about the biodegradability of this product than the carbon footprint. Heating, electricity, and transportation are (according to a quick search) the biggest sources of carbon dioxide emission and I think our focus should be on mitigating emissions for those. Things like sneakers should, in my opinion, have a different focus when we consider their environmental impact, namely their biodegradability and/or recyclability. That said, if we decarbonized energy and transportation, it would also impact the bottom-line carbon score of this product.
I kind of agree with some of the pessimistic comments made elsewhere - there are too many vested national and corporate interests for a meaningful version of this to get off the ground.
What about a national voluntary certification scheme that would award a score. I don't think it could ever be a precise score - there are too many variables to control. But even with a crude 10-point score, it would mean that a product whose components are all manufactured and transported locally would have a better score than a multinational that sourced components that cumulatively had travelled around the world 5 times, to give an example.
I think that whether or not people currently understand what all this means, its much like the food nutrition labels - it forces makers to recognize the content of their products but also informs us and allows all of us to make an informed decision about what we decide to put in our bodies. I think that when makers start labeling their work along carbon footprint terms, they are also forced to recognize how taxing what they do is on the environment and how they can work to reduce it as well as giving us as consumers a benchmark for understanding what we want to support or not. Of course we can all get better at understanding what each of those numbers really mean, but don't worry, if this becomes universal, there will be enough people willing to create articles that explain how to read those numbers. Just wait.
(edited)
Maybe the customers don't understand how much CO2 means this +2,94 but, what if you plant a tree when they are buying a product? Not has to be only with Tree-Nation, there are a lot of possibilities (a lot) to do it.

For the final customer (believe me) is much more understandable, and credible, the action of planting and attaching a certificate of a tree to take action to cover and relief this impact on the earth 👉
A tree helps to offset the CO2 generated to make this product

What do you preffer as a customer in terms of CX?

1.- We as a company, we control the numbers of the emissions that is generating this product.

2.- We as a company we control the numbers of the emissions that is generating this product and we take care of this.

With small things we can have a big impact, don't you think? 🌳 😊 😉 😘
What about water eutrophication ? What about the working conditions? What about respect of biodiversity ? My recommendations to adidas : 1/ Carbon doesn’t speak to anyone if not compared to something tangible. 2/ climate is not the alpha and the omega of our problem. Environmental footprint deals with many other factors than climate and CO2. 3/ how do you prove the consistency of these claims if you do not substantiate these measures with trusted and auditable data.
If you want to be transparent, choose the right tools.
Lubomila Jordanova I believe that we should not make it so complicated for the customers. i am 💯 for transparency but mindful of confusion triggers (counterproductive then)

We need rather all brands to work on improving their #supplychain (materials, production, logistics, work ethics …) but also all brands to care genuinely about the #aftersaleslife of their products.

Of course both parts are linked, as currently only 1% of materials can really be reused as new fibers. True circularity is far from beeing reached nowdays.

We need All brands to work on :
- gaining #trust by clearly concrete actions on products’s #lifeextension
- and make it easier for the customers to move to a healthier relationship to #consumption
It is surely a good start. But our impact on the environment is not only the carbon footprint.
We have also water, nitrogen, sulphur footprints.. which should also be included. Maybe for this specific product the other footprints are negligible compared to the carbon footprint, but we need to start looking at the complete picture and not focus on CO2 only.
Furthermore, these numbers don't mean anything without context or further detail.
Finally, social sustainability should also be included.
The image you share is an excellent way to demonstrate that most of the things we consume have a carbon footprint.

The more familiar we are with this information the easier it will be for all of us to take action to counteract this footprint.

Just as we all struggle to control our calories to achieve weight loss, we should all fight against our carbon footprint to achieve climate improvements and a healthier planet in which to live.

Thanks for posts like this! Let's start working on our carbon footprint!

#carbonfootprint #carbonneutral #printingsolutions #printing
“This is what every product should have on its product's label” No. This post is far more interesting in terms of
Sociology than the actual picture. Analytical for and against, guilt-based, mainstream confirmation, social media viral effects, demographics, this is food for political and brand messaging and the great picture is the data provided by all around this extremely simplistic and stupid picture which doesn’t even have the decency of showing the whole design of the product, humans are funny.
Very good and important step forward but the product/ presentation needs some further development. It is hard for consumers to understand what these numbers are about. It will be good to think a bit more how to benchmark and present these numbers to consumers. At the last point it will be good to refer to Adidas’ shoe recycling facilities’ addresses:)
I'm interested to know how the USE has no carbon footprint? Products wear out and break before end of life resulting in waste. Material wears out, or breaks off entirely in chunks needing some kind of cleanup. Replacing laces, cleaning is part of use? especially for a white/cream shoe. innersoles? All seems like this would be under USE, so surely it can't be 0?

Interestingly what it does show is that industry is responsible for +2.48 or the footprint before it gets out of production. A person purchasing it has no control over that number. Even if they dont purchase it, the product is still there making the footprint.

+0 for USE ironically suggests the user produces no footprint for having and using the item. Which is a bit confusing when the point of the label is surely to show the consumers footprint? 🤔
Great idea, this is something that should now be on bikes that are imported into the UK. Gives the customer a choice on a product which is more environmental with a lower carbon footprint. Would be good if it could be broken down to frame and components 🚲🚲🚲
Most companies pretend like reducing "cArbOn FoOtPrInt" is a revolutionary step, when it's not. Look at the process of manufacturing the things we use everyday, what happens to industrial waste? Where do they source the required materials from? Lastly, how do they discard things they don't need anymore? (Also applies to us)
Most companies choose to take selective decisions when it comes to sustainability (making sure they handpick the easiest ways), while they knowingly neglect important and possibly more impactful ways.
What Problem does this fix?
This idea implies that the user cares about their CO2 footprint. It implies that they know what those numbers mean.
Additionally how can a user be sure that this list is complete and reliable?
There are no regulations regarding this.

The user is completely left alone here when considering buying this item and that I feel is the underlying problem that companies don't address and take responsibility for.

In conclusion for me this is sadly just another greenwashing campaign. :/
(edited)
Should we have a sticker stating
the number of lifes kills for making this shoes
the oil spills, the child labor/violent, the soil degradation it created the marine lives poisonned by the shoe microparticules, the hormonal disruption it created in living organisme etc. and the destruction shoe created with the financing of corruptions with the revenue of the sale.

We always underestimate the impact of every technology that is not made in a "regenerative" way with a for-profit mindset.

Time to switch to a for life mindset....
this shoe is made of hemp and help restore the xxx acre of mangrove at xyz...

I would prefer these type of stickers
In the same way that Big Oil coined the Carbon Footprint and local governments in the UK tick the recycling box before sending their waste to landfill elsewhere, this feels a lot like shifting responsibility to the consumer. More concerted action at government level is required if this is to become anything more than a matter of branding.
When will brands get it? There is absolutely no point putting the carbon footprint on something when most people do not understand nor relate to what a kg of carbon emissions actually is or what it means to them as individuals and as a community. Brands would be better off listing the % of recycled materials they have used in the item, how much water it has taken to produce and what % the person who made the product actually gets from the sale of the item. Ah but then I guess seeing as trainers are one of the most unsustainable items in fashion and generates significant revenues for the brands, why would they do that?! Better they use alienating jargon that makes people think they are buying a sustainable product and keep greenwashing alive.
Very nice, I agree, let's show the world how to become better with small achievements like this!
(edited)
We need to turn all the likes that people give to these kind of posts into a single, united call to action by people all over the world demanding that the politicians take IMMEDIATE action to require this kind of tag on all products, and reign in the fossil fuel industry that is at the heart of the climate crisis.

This will send a POLITICAL signal and message to the politicians saying that 1) the majority understand there is a price to pay, 2) they/we are willing to pay it. This will empower the politicians to be true leaders and act more aggressively, knowing they have majority support so if they act, they will be re-elected.

At the same time, there is no choice but for individual people to #rethinkwhatmatters and stop consuming the non-essential products manufactured with fossil fuels.

This will send an ECONOMIC signal that will hopefully put out of business those companies manufacturing stuff that is not needed and is destroying the environment. Will it hurt? Probably. But it's going to hurt a lot more if this is not done.
(edited)
I don’t get it. If the goal is to create I don’t think it’s much effective. Firstly, there is the question of how many people understand carbon footprint.

Secondly, the numbers don’t say much at all. Is the +2.94 good? Or is it bad?

I’d much rather have a QR code where I am led to a fun and interactive website where they can teach me about carbon footprint and how the shoe is good or bad.
Right... then some will sue for lack of evidence on the methodology (hello Norway) while other will call it greenwashing. Las, most consumers will neither notice nor bother (that does it mean ... if I want these shoes...).

May I add : 2.94 whatever per pair, means how much for the total output of an Adidas ? Good / bad ?

Of course my point is not so much against Adidas, arguably moving the lines there. But there is little evidence that corporate accounting of such footprints will move the needle anywhere close to what we need, and not fast enough anyways.
I don't see how stating this helps the customer.....An industry accepted comparative scale or a grading system for LCA emissions (similar to the ones that have been used for IEC/hybrid/electric vehicles for years starting from A++, A+, A, B, etc. based on LCA emissions) across shoe types would help a customer choose a variant that is has a lower CO2 footprint, even if it costs more....
(edited)
Seriously carbon footprint?? Apologies but at over £100 a pair Adidal and All bird should stop overcharging a simple trainers which cost £20 to be made and start promoting some social pricing for kids to enjoy sports instead of fleecing their parents for £1000's to get the latest models I invite you to go to YouTube and hear how Shaq O'Neil cut his ties with Reebok when they were overcharging kids that's a true help to society and kids also put a QR CODE that these trainers were made in a fair conditions not in low labour factory.
It’s interesting, but nobody understands it. I think it should be done in a way that people actually understand these numbers in a way that they can actually relate to. We have to humanize content rather than just showing numbers.
The question is, how do you calculate? If the process is too strict, you are creating a huge barrier of entry for new companies. If the process is too vague, the information wouldn't be reliable. By saying "every product should have it." Would you impose this by regulation or would you leave it up to the market for companies to have it as a competitive advantage. I'd be worried about more regulation as it blocks new players from market entry, reduces competition, pushes prices up and curbs invention.
I'm a consumer. I wouldn't trust that data. All I see is corporate virtue signaling. Spend less time announcing and patting yourself on the back.... Like I teach my kids Integrity is doing the right thing even when no one is looking 1. Footwear is shipped half way across the world (how green is that) 2. from countries NOT using environmentally sensitive practices nor respectable labor practices. Give me a break.
(edited)
I wonder why Use phase is 0.0 kgCO2 eq.

Rather there can be a scale defined for sustainable product ..

0 - Least sustainable/ High carbon footprint
5 - Highly sustainable/ Low carbon footprint

Or color based differentiation would be great for everyone:

Red - Least sustainable
Green - Highly sustainable

#Your #Thoughts
I like the idea of replacing traditional labels with the carbon footprint labels, but I have a few questions with regards to the label: |

1. What is the goal of having the carbon footprint label instead of traditional label? Are we placing these labels with the expectation that consumers will understand the carbon cycle of the products they consume?

2. Does having carbon footprint label change consumers' attitude towards their consumption and primarily their consumer behavior?
The term "c- FOOTPRINT" on a SHOE suggests this is a harmless marketing feature. This quickly reminded me of early air jordans that technically didnt have the air sole. On the product, brands I buy use terms across the product line - like hard, soft, medium hold for hair styler - across brands there's no true consistency and that's not a bother.

The figures could well be accurate and can help the buyer by adding an ethical conundrum to the adidas decision making process.
This is interesting. Would rather leave place for other sorts of impact instead of just CO2 in all the life cycles stages though.
There’s a lot of good and bad to be tracked and shared: CO2, water spent, fabrics, rubber, workers conditions, recycled material, etc.
And a sustainability label in the end (A to E) like we have in some types of food.
Beautiful concept though 🙌🌱
This is absolutely a fantastic idea!
I have been thinking about a label on the products just like this, which shows the carbon footprint or the environmental impact (eg. x L. Of water, etc) related to every product we buy!
It will allows us to be more conscious. Moreover, it would become a KPI which allows us to make the right decision : is it really worth buying it or not!
However, greenwashing remains an issue to be managed…
Looking at the E part.... With millions of question marks on the Scope 3 calcs at least ... How about the SG part? Do you know where this lovely pair of shoes was produced, under what type of working process and what kind of population produce it? REn energies will save the world acc. to zillion of non scientific publications... do we know how the core natural resources needed for REn are produced.... ? Well some people look at it.
Anna Spenceley - saw your post about plastic waste and this one after each other...thought you might be interested!
Pay attention people: this will pave the way to control you and what you do. Avoid this stupidity or you will be paying with your freedom for a hoax.
Hello Jordanova,
Yes that’s what we should do for every product. That’s what the European Commission is pushing for in the coming years !!
But why Adidas is only communicating this on Allbirds collaboration products when we know thé everage Carbon footprint of a pair of shoe is between 9-kg and 15-kg of CO2 when produced in Asia!! And mots Adidas shorts are producedin this area!.
This not Green communication focused on what is well done and to hide mots of other products?
Sorry, I'm not ready for these kind of metrics, are you?

What does it mean? Is it high / low? What is the industry average? Who calculated it and how? It is objective?
And even more interesting, does the brand apply it to all the shoes or just to a few chosen models?

Is this then only a marketing, data manipulation to make us feel better buying another fancy bun not necessary pair of shoes? Where is true care for the environment?
Such variety of comments, from very positive to really negative ones. While these numbers might really not mean much to a regular consumer and as some of the comments say, its all done for marketing purposes, I think it is really good for raising awareness. Yes, today people might not know if this is a high or low reading but it will encourage them (us) to read and get more information. And to think more about our choices.
As well as an EPD Environmental Product Declaration I'd like to see a PDC - Product Declaration of Costs - so we can see how much profit they're making off these ridiculous prices... even if its just a % declaration

Imagine if they had a PDC on electric and gas, with one Category Declaration being 'tax' 😮

Surely a consumer should also be able to decide which companies need support, not those that buy low from sweatshops and sell high in fashion.

Just a thought #ProductDeclarationCosts
Indeed, it would also be helpful to extend such indications on products available for example in supermarkets, similar to this nutri-score label which converts the nutritional value of food and beverages into a simple overall score. Making such data available could pave the path to exciting business models with colossal benefits for many stakeholders involved, including the end-consumer... Anyone out there working on this already or at least aware of activities in this area?
And if you could now track the supply chain via the #blockchain, it would be perfect. Then the QR code would have yet another new task. Markus Begerow already has a few use cases ready to hand. 😉
This numbers are totally without usefull meaning. Additional label and print-additional unnecessary costs which are transferred to the consumer! Sorry but with this asset we are not on the right way to “fake” green planet.
Oops they left out the carbon cost of the virtue signalling and wholly unnecessary label …… in life , doing is more important than being seen to be doing….
Is this good or bad? What is the benchmark in shoes making? Otherwise excellent marketing approach.
How does this make any difference?
I like it (kinda), but what is end goal here? Google shows CO2 emissions by flight now and while it feels good to select a flight with 2 less kgs of CO2, it's still mass consumption at end of day. Making "smarter" consumption choices is preferred when consumption is necessary but the pushback is going to come from deeper greens who say this just makes us feel better about endless conspicuous consumption. Maybe next step is a "necessity" score?
This is extremely gimmicky to put it politely. Sure production, packaging and transportation play a solid role in polluting the environment but notice how producers always fail to take into account the pollution generated by the good after its life-cycle is over? The point here is that we cannot expect to escape the threats posed to our planet by consumerism by consuming, crazy right? It’s time to look at this “awareness” initiatives for what they really are: greenwashing.
I agree, especially as a 'final touch' to empower the consumer to choose wisely. Also necessary, companies use a transparent and provable solution tracking those values on a regulator-compliant, carbon-negative platform.

Hedera can be that platform, and if you are curious how it can do it, "Going Carbon Negative at Hedera Hashgraph" (https://hedera.com/blog/going-carbon-negative-at-hedera-hashgraph) by Brady G. is an excellent entry point.
Who will be authorized to validate the label? Who will authorize them?
(edited)
This is what no product should have on its product label.
First, it is a manifestation of the shift of responsibility from the producers to the costumers, à la "...we are just producing what our consumers want".
Second, nobody can verify if these data are correct. Hence, this labeling will be just another form of greenwashing.
Lastly and most importantly, sustainability should be a principle in all products and not a "consumer's informed choice".
Qua bewustzijn wat mij betreft een prima idee. Benieuwd naar de wetenschappelijke mening
Carbon dioxide is good. Over the last 40 years the earth has been significantly been greening. Explain to me why life exploded during the Cambrian explosion when CO2 levels were 10 times the level they are now. If the evidence of global warming was so strong NASA wouldn’t constantly have to constantly rewrite their charts. If oceans rising was real the Obamas wouldn’t have bought ocean front property for $16 million in Martha’s Vineyard.
As should the carbon emmissions of goods and services exchanged between suppliers and manufacturers be measured, advertised, and, more importantly, regulated so that we invert the carbon curve together. The onus cannot be exclusively on the consumer. The global economy has far more moving parts than that for consumer pressure to be the sole answer to the situation. Personally, I'll be impressed when adidas and Allbirds can prove that they absolutely don't have strategies that implement #plannedobsolescence.
#scope3emissions
(edited)
While the numbers might be hard to understand for most consumers, this is a brilliant step (no pun intended.. well, maybe a little bit) in the right direction. Exposing the environmental impact right there and then allows the consumer to make a thoughtful choice about where they spend their cash and it forces the supplier to confess all. If we make sustainability simple, more people will make the right choices!
Great initiative and the effort to calculate the carbon footprint is admirable because it takes a lot of time and effort (=££). Sadly it disadvantages small businesses who don’t have the resources and might also struggle to access the data, and I agree with the comments below regarding durability. As consumers we can choose to buy products that last longer and choose to use them longer.
I wiuld like to see good practices reflected in the total amount, showing how the products are at minimum carbon neutral, because the company making it, is taking care of cradle to cradle production and practices whereby the company gives back more than it takes…. at Alinker we are more than carbon neutral, and that is the minimum…. not just ‘off-setting’ the footprint, but improving practicrs to minimize the footprint….
Great to see this kind of information being made available, Baukjen & Isabella Oliver (House of Baukjen) do something similar on their product pages, and as a consumer I welcome it to help make more informed choices, as well as providing a means of accountability for businesses. Like most solutions it doesn't work in a silo, but when paired with 'pre-loved' initiatives, etc , it can really help consumers make value aligned choices.
And water? Chemicals? And average wear time? I think 2 detailed - this numbers say nothing if most are not educated in this area or when how to change consumption behavior. Buying more alternative products is still the best but than people don’t want to consume lesser other products due to often higher prices. Child work is an important topic as well.
(edited)
Objection! Quick questions:

- How would this influence consumer purchase behaviour? In fact, of what use is carbon footprint information to consumers?
- How do you mitigate greenwash when climate action is weaponised as marketing strategy?
- The impression all Addidas’ and Allbirds customers are learned of ‘carbon footprint 👣’ is either a compliment or ignorance—quite.


We all know this would mean NOTHING without consumer behavioural change.

#climateaction #greenwashing
I'm all for transparency and having educated consumers. I have a slight concern about who is monitoring and verifying the numbers presented, esp. since much of manufacturing, packaging, and transport occur in other countries.

That being said, don't expect miracles to happen just because we have labels with relevant info. We have had nutrition labels on food for decades yet the obesity epidemic keeps getting worse.
Would be interesting, however we are not there yet. We would need stricter rules/guidelines along which we calculate these impacts. Right now it is very hard to compare carbon footprints, with different scoping.

Also, would carbon footprinting be the best metric, or should we look at recyclability, repairability, etc. If this shoe would be well repairable, you would increase your initial footprint, but overall make the shoe more "sustainable".
So here’s where the evil starts, because as you know if you are tracking CO2 then at some point that label will be appearing on humans and then you know where that leads to meet targets. WEF , EU, UN are the oligarch’s and they don’t care about us mere Proles , they are interested in money so the can buy more power and power without oversight is a recipe for abuse. The very notion of this lable is abhorrent .
(edited)
Welcome to your Social Climate Score - You cannot leave the house to buy food because you are 1% over your score for the month.

This will link to your Social Credit Score and that will link to your Business Climate Credit Score.
The latter is happening in China as you read.

Most are really disconnected to what is `Really` going on it is extremely concerning.
Everything in the lead of ESG consciousness is a move forward for humanity.

Of course, the risk of over doing to greenwash the profit objective and increasing alternate carbon footprint as a byproduct may be equally real.

The triple bottomlines of people, planet and profit will have to find their equilibrium along the way, weathering through market forces!

Lubomila Jordanova

Kudos for kicking up the intelligent discourse ...
absolute the worst quality shoes, getting worn out in 3 months. made of sponge, air and whatever disposable materials they use now. not even a piece of synthetic leather anymore! so yea, environment! you keep buying one every 3 months.
not sure if it is environment or marketing for greed and even cheaper self-cost. just saying.
No consumer would understand this. A traffic light system compared to similar products would be much better.
Forcing this kind of label into the products would increase carbon footprint (more paper/textiles would be used for something useless) and also increase the costs of manufacturing and of course, the final price.

Something that is only important to a ridiculously small percentage of the customer base is a bad business decision if it comes from any business that isn't targeting climate "conscious" people and a horrible economic decision if enforced by the government.
Carrie (Karen) Lomas has developed an amazing system for this that is so consumer friendly. Ask her about her business Brand Conscience Ltd~Simplifying Sustainability.
Time to biodegrade: 1000 years.
Like with food, a great implementation could be to refer these results to a more classical concept to make it easier to perceive. Like amount of sugars and recommended daily intake. It's a bit of a stretch but i it could make sense to calculate something like the max footprint per month we can have and report this value to it: 2.94Kg (3% of your monthly recommended footprint)
Good starting point, it should be complemented with a drill down on the numbers via qr code, and a better explanation on to get to these numbers, may be with a trend showing the progress, etc… but the most important thing is to transmit to everyone in the world that we really have to start thinking to the CO2 impact in every single thing we have, or we do in our life.
full Green washing. Ils ne maîtrisent pas la base d’un produit éco responsable: la durabilité (dans le temps).

C’est vrai pour toute leur ligne de sport (chaussures de running et foot). La durée de vie est pathétique… 4 mois sur ma dernière paire de crampons va 12/18 mois quelques années plus tôt. Si vous m’entendez adidas, faites un truc.
(edited)
It will further strengthen their business if they can showcase evidence and reliability of this information shared if they in future plan to accommodate having a qr code to trace emission flow data for producing this particular product from the ultimate supplier who provide raw materials from the start of the supply chain until sending it to end customer using the product.

This is industry changing for adidas what they have done .
Towards a better future I presume !!
Good practice. It would be even more transparant to use the label 'eco footprint' to go beyond CO2 and look at other factors impacting our environment, like water consumption and the use of chemicals during production. CO2 is important but it shouldn't be confused with a metric that stands for eco friendliness. Keep up the good work and keep going on this trajectory for a sustainable future.
Akhil Sivanandan if you haven't seen it. . .
Why exactly?
How do you implement the aspect of possible significant differences reg expected product life times ? A product with double the calculated impact as shown but 4 times higher ‚life expectation‘ might be the better choice. How do calculated carbon footprint look like for example comparing leather shoes to vegan alternatives out of mushroom, pine apple etc ?
It’s definitely coming! Homethings cleaning products already do this….
I wonder how does a typical consumer -who cares to read this label- can reference this amount of carbon. Is it too little or too much? How can he further drive his behavior in a world where no other competing products have such information and where price, comfort, looks and marketing are by far more important drivers for deciding the purchase? Thanks for sharing.
CO2 is a good indicator, but it would be even better if the total environmental impact could be communicated with a one-point score. So that in addition to CO2eq, you also look at acidification, ozone depletion, etc. For the Dutch construction industry we are already working hard on this, through the Environmental Cost Indicator (MKI).
(edited)
This is amazing Lubomila Jordanova, but I would request tagging a small leaflet or mini card with the shoes explaining the numbers and pros, cons of current cases. It will help the consumers to understand the whole concept faster. This can be useful for educational purposes to educate people about carbon footprints and probably build the trust for the brands.
yes yes yes 💥 it’s a great way to start conversations. especially the collaboration makes it even stronger, proofing that both brands take their responsibility seriously and build up on tne power of each other for a bigger impact. it’s really a great example of why we should join more forces when it comes to raising awareness. 🙌🏽
Except that it's 💯% false. Use is not 0. The more you move, the more CO2 you produce adidas and Allbirds. If you're going to wear them every day for 5 years, you're likely going to produce between 3-5K of litres of CO2, depending on your activity 😉
Moniek van der Liende something to consider to incorporate in our Blue Paper for ShoppingTomorrow
This is amazing; small innovations or ideas by brands really can help to make populations more aware of the impact of their everyday actions. I commend adidas and hope that other big brands will follow.
(edited)
It is hard to believe that people will choose a product just for its low carbon footprint, ignoring functional features and price. Current concerns about global warming often take all our attention (to an extent of over-fixation), so that a number of other extremely dangerous factors and poisoning substances remain unjustifiably neglected.
Yes! And although sceptics will argue these numbers are inaccurate and imperfect, we need to start somewhere and build understandable and reliable assessments of CO2 footprint for each product we make. Without transparent measurements there is no baseline. Without baseline, no improvement.
Sounds like great marketing.. the mass producers keep mass producing with no accountability and social media influencers can boast themselves and shame others into a decision that really shouldn't be theirs to make but there should rather be industry rules and practices set and the final consumer should already find a product in the shelves that meets the requirements.
Would like more comment from those who know more. I read recently « carbon footprint » concept was invented by energy firms looking to download responsibility for greenhouse carbon onto consumers. I can see that in a low regulation market economy it is difficult or impossible for industry to seek lower carbon.
This makes me wonder... would companies have switched to lower-carbon production methods if they were made to account for their externalities from the get go?

Regardless, as consumers, having information about how a certain product impacts the environment is a positive. Though, I think we should also know more about the supply chain, for example, regarding labor.
How would one confirm it? That It is a legitimate carbon footprint of the product. Just writing it down on shoes for consumer to pay more isn't enough. I have seen some products labeled as bio or fair but nothing to be cross checked for customers satisfaction.
I don’t think it would matter no different than food now having the calorie count consumption on the menu. At first people used to look at it, then they forget about it. You want to save the planet have production be based on consumption and not the other way around. With the internet it is possible, only produce if someone places an order and not the other way around . #one4one
Let's make a food production label, showing carcinogenic and toxic pesticides, packaging production and transport poison levels, etc. Just all besides the chemical crap that's being used to keep it longer in your closed and adds flavor to it. Really, let us be concerned a little more about our food and our health. 🙏🙏🙏🌏🌎🌍
As marketing strategy it works, because the consumer thinks that he/she is making a green choice, buying a product with a label in which the enviromental impact is specified. On the other side not all the consumers know enviromental KPI (Scope 1, 2, 3 ecc.) and how Carbon Footprint is calculated, so 2.94 or another number, could have the same value
If your looking for more sustainable alternatives like this one, sign up to this waitlist. When we have 100 people, I will add the data. Currently at 40 signups. 🙌
https://www.sustainablealternativeto.com
Wilco Wietsma dit is wel tof
Nicely done! We're building something similar for the travel industry 🌍
Nothing in comparison with Opera Campi's "Massive impact" product spec.
Similar to children learning the value of money or learning to tell the time, we all have to learn the relative value of CO2 metrics for our activities. I am afraid, this works only when having a CO2 Budget also similar to our monthly money budget or to the limited 24h/day.
Hebatallah Al-Nsour تتذكري هاي الاجابة ع CO2eq
Absolutely Lubomila Jordanova, its a great way to educate and help each other make informed choices. A couple of my colleagues will be interested in this, the eco labelling magician Carlo Garavaglia from Epson Italia and our very own #wimhof of sustainability Henning Ohlsson. Plus the label gurus Adam Samuel Gavin Thurston Graham Anscombe #sustainability #education #doyourbit
Yes thats great. But for the average person on the street. What does any of that mean?? Its just numbers. It has no relatability. They need to find a better way for it to make the person in the shop think. Trouble is if they showed what it meant the consumer may not buy the shoe! Not what a brand would want.
Anita Merzbacher 🌱💚
It’s a good start however not sure if this is user friendly.
Vow! Dette er et steg i riktig retning. Få beslutningsrelevant ut til forbrukere, så beslutninger ikke tas kun utfra pris, utseende, løpsfølelse mv. Et eksempel på bærekraftsregnskap. Slik info bør vi også få når vi handler mat i butikken. Selv om vi ikke kan vite (utfra dette) i hvilken grad info er pålitelig, så kan det ordnes. Alternativt kunne de lagt til en QR-kode med link til mer info. Flott eksempel!
Love this idea. End of Life is such an important part of any product’s design, but not many companies pay attention to it. Should it be the case if EoL gets above a certain threshold, should it even be made in the first place?
First a one million dollar reward should be given to the scientist that can undeniably proof that Carbon emission by humans is the number one cause of Climate Change. I am happy to contribute the 25000 dollar that my government is currently lending on my behalf to solve this alleged problem…
Some comments may not be displayed in the Most relevant view. To see these comments, select Most recent.